Australia's Social Media Ban

[Stella]

So from tomorrow, under 16s will be banned from using the worst social media platforms.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aus ... /4j58qo83f

The federal government's long-awaited social media ban for children under 16 is on the verge of taking effect.

The restrictions will prevent Australian children from creating or keeping an account on many popular social platforms, including Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook.

Communications Minister Annika Wells has repeatedly said the ban will protect children from exposure to pressures and risks that come with being logged into social media accounts and insists any "short-term discomfort will be worth the long-term benefits".

Some experts have been divided over the issue, saying the ban will have positive and negative effects, while others have argued social media is an important tool for young people to have access to.

The ban comes into force on Wednesday 10 December — the deadline for specified social media platforms to restrict users aged under 16 from accessing their accounts.

Meta has confirmed users aged under 16 travelling overseas for a short-term holiday will still be restricted from using Facebook and Instagram.

For temporary visa holders, such as international students, a spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner said the rules apply to young people under 16 who are "ordinarily resident" in Australia and that these users should be aware their accounts may be flagged.

The Meta spokesperson said it's unlikely teens who enter Australia for a short holiday will have their accounts restricted.

"However, if they stay in Australia for an extended period, such as long study periods, then our age assurance measures will take effect," the spokesperson said.

The platforms banned had to meet certain criteria as decided by Wells, which includes that they allow users to interact, and link, with other users, and post material.

As of 21 November, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant decided the following services will be age-restricted social media platforms:

— Facebook
— Instagram
— Kick
— Reddit
— Snapchat
— Threads
— TikTok
— Twitch
— X
— YouTube

I was just listening to the radio saying that only 7% of parents with teens disagree with the ban. It's overwhelmingly welcomed by that cohort.

What do you think about that?

[Highlander]

What do I think?

I think that it is unenforceable. I think that is yet another example of parents abrogating their responsibility to the State. I think that it is another step on the State's march to control and indoctrinate children, and that the banned platforms will be replaced by platforms approved and created by the State.I think that it will create another Band of Bureaucrats, paid to monitor and pontificate and expend public funds.

I think that is a really bad idea. If you hadn't guessed.

[Stella]

One of the aspects I'm interested in is how enforceable it turns out to be. They will be using AI to detect subtle signs of an underage user which will test the capability of AI.

As for parents, most have less practical knowledge of the internet than their teenage kids so are grateful to the State for doing something. Even my husband who is a retired IT analyst, depends on our sons for IT advice these days.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Republican senator Josh Hawley, who sits on the Senate judiciary committee and is an advocate for harsher restrictions on social media, said that American parents would welcome an Australia-style ban. “I like it. I’ve supported age limits here in the US for kids on social media,” he said. “I say this as a parent … Parents need help, and they feel like they’re swimming upstream when everybody else has social media. “My kids don’t have it, but they go over to somebody’s house and they have it – it’s difficult. An age limit for when kids can use social media would work. I think parents would welcome it.” Republican senator Josh Hawley says he would support a social media ban for children in the United States.

Barack Obama’s former chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, a potential contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, also threw his support behind the Australian world-first move, comparing it to banning phones in schools or regulations to reduce teen smoking. “No child under the age of 16 should have access to social media,” Emanuel wrote on X. “When it comes to our adolescents, it’s either going to be adults or the algorithms that raise our kids. TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and others are too powerful, too addictive, too alluring and too often target our young kids. Parents cannot fight Big Tech alone.”

[Highlander]

Two points.

The folks mentioned above are both politicians. Politicians generally think government is the solution to all ills. What they are selling is another plank in the zeitgeist -- telling parents government will assume yet another portion of their parenting duties and responsibilities. Many parents will think that is just dandy. Much as many parents have been suborned to believe that teachers are responsible for their children's education.

Forbidden fruit. Phones are banned in schools and tobacco is banned for kids; kids, who want to, use phones in school use them, and kids, who want to, smoke like demons. Where there is a desire there is action to satisfy it. Wonder what little Suzy and little Joey will do to get three hours online.

Oh, a third point. I wouldn't look to Aussie as a exemplar in social morays. Instead of the admirable land of stalwart folks who eased out from under Britannia's shadow and went their own way, it seems to have become part of the radical Anglosphere. Look at Canada and Kiwiland. Thank goodness the US was able to break away 250 years ago.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

One of the functions of law--one of its primary functions--is to make it easier for good people to live good lives. It turns out that parents need help in raising kids in our media-soaked society. I don't see this as the government taking over for parents. I see it as government giving parents an assist.

Similarly, I am all in favor of schools banning cell phones, and while enforcement will never be 100%, it drastically reduces their usage during the school day.

And I'm generally libertarian-leaning, so I definitely don't look to government as the solution to all things.

[Highlander]

Perhaps things are different in public schools elsewhere, but it is reliably reported to me that, while use of phones banned in public schools, phone use permeates the fabric of middle and high schools. Note I said the use of phones is banned, not the possession of phones. It seems that parents are major opponents of forbidding the possession of phones .... because they might need to get in touch with their kid for some special, overriding reason. And kids have perfected the surreptitious operation of their phones.

I am not saying that phone use is open and constant; I am saying that phones are used when a kid really wants to use one and when a parent decides to text their kid.

So -- a modus vivendi. The schools ban use, the kids use, and both pretend the rule is being followed.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

My experience is that the bans are enforced. If yours differs, so be it. I agree they should be in place for all grades, not just high school.

[Highlander]

I am encouraged that somewhere bans on cell phones are enforced. Not round here. In public schools. And even less in the private schools I know of. Perhaps in certain Christian and parochial schools.

I have also been informed that the parents of today's students are a generation that grew up with cell phones. In general, they see no issue with having constant access to a phone. In fact, they champion access since "I may need to text my child." On the question of possession the mantra is "My child may need to use the phone for an emergency."

I was told of a time a phone went off during a class. The school banned use, not possession. Because banning possession was unenforceable. The student, when confronted, stated that her mother was off work due to illness and wanted to chat.

It may be the case that parents would like some gatekeeper controlling their child's unfettered access to a smart phone. I understand that impulse. The question then is -- who is the gatekeeper? It seem that, in Aussie, it is the government.

[Doom]

In this particular case, Australian law is only a reiteration of the policies of Facebook and X, both platforms had long forbid accounts for anyone under 16.

[Doom]

One of the aspects I'm interested in is how enforceable it turns out to be.

You may be right that it is close to impossible to enforce, but that doesn't by itself make it a bad idea. Responsible social media use requires a certain level of maturity. I for one am grateful that no social media existed when I was in high school. I had no platform to post my bad poetry, which means nobody knows about it except me.

[Highlander]

In this particular case, Australian law is only a reiteration of the policies of Facebook and X, both platforms had long forbid accounts for anyone under 16.

And that is working .... how well?

[Highlander]

One of the aspects I'm interested in is how enforceable it turns out to be. ...

You may be right that it is close to impossible to enforce, but that doesn't by itself make it a bad idea. ...

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I hold that a law or rule or mandated practice, when not enforced, is a signal that no law or rule or mandated practice need be observed. The basic tension is between the individual and the collective. If the individual can determine which mandates of the collective he shall observe, then chaos follows. An unenforced law, no matter the intrinsic merit of the law itself, is a bad idea.

The examples are ubiquitous. We were speaking of schools. If there is little cell phone discipline, then is it surprising that there is little attendance discipline, homework discipline, grading discipline, and teachers showing up for mandatory bus, hallway, study hall, or lunchroom duty? Observance of school norms is now voluntary, since there is no practical enforcement of the norms. As argued above, if parents, in the aggregate, are calling for cell phone discipline, then how are we to take the average parent demanding that their child be an exception to that discipline?

Another example is automobile and driver licensing and registration laws. Round here a very visible and increasing number of vehicles have no plates, have expired plates, are uninsured, have fake temporary registration placards, have lights out, and have solidly, all round darkened windows -- illegal but common. The laws exist, but we have virtually no traffic enforcement; I can go several weeks without seeing a police vehicle and I have gone more than a year without seeing a car pulled over by police. We live in a solidly blue sanctuary city with a nationally renowned crime rate; it seems that such vehicles are often stolen or are on the road due to the victim status of the operator. That is, the operator claims he cannot afford to adhere to the laws, so he doesn't. The societal signal is clear; one can do as they please with whatever vehicle one cares to drive on the local roads and there will be no consequences. The law be damned.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I have also been informed that the parents of today's students are a generation that grew up with cell phones. In general, they see no issue with having constant access to a phone. In fact, they champion access since "I may need to text my child." On the question of possession the mantra is "My child may need to use the phone for an emergency."

The Catholic high school where I used to be chaplain instituted a complete cell phone ban this year. When I stopped by for a visit, I mentioned how pleased I was with the ban. They told me there were parents who were reluctant to send their children to the school unless such a ban was in place. The local public schools had already instituted it.

[Doom]

One of the aspects I'm interested in is how enforceable it turns out to be. ...

You may be right that it is close to impossible to enforce, but that doesn't by itself make it a bad idea. ...

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I hold that a law or rule or mandated practice, when not enforced, is a signal that no law or rule or mandated practice need be observed. The basic tension is between the individual and the collective. If the individual can determine which mandates of the collective he shall observe, then chaos follows. An unenforced law, no matter the intrinsic merit of the law itself, is a bad idea.

The examples are ubiquitous. We were speaking of schools. If there is little cell phone discipline, then is it surprising that there is little attendance discipline, homework discipline, grading discipline, and teachers showing up for mandatory bus, hallway, study hall, or lunchroom duty? Observance of school norms is now voluntary, since there is no practical enforcement of the norms. As argued above, if parents, in the aggregate, are calling for cell phone discipline, then how are we to take the average parent demanding that their child be an exception to that discipline?

Another example is automobile and driver licensing and registration laws. Round here a very visible and increasing number of vehicles have no plates, have expired plates, are uninsured, have fake temporary registration placards, have lights out, and have solidly, all round darkened windows -- illegal but common. The laws exist, but we have virtually no traffic enforcement; I can go several weeks without seeing a police vehicle and I have gone more than a year without seeing a car pulled over by police. We live in a solidly blue sanctuary city with a nationally renowned crime rate; it seems that such vehicles are often stolen or are on the road due to the victim status of the operator. That is, the operator claims he cannot afford to adhere to the laws, so he doesn't. The societal signal is clear; one can do as they please with whatever vehicle one cares to drive on the local roads and there will be no consequences. The law be damned.

You seem not to remember the bad old days of MySpace on which there were no privacy filters and which used to be populated with pedophiles who preyed on the kids on the platform. Many children lack discernment and will respond to everyone including showing up where someone they meet wants them to. This is why, when it became open to the public, Facebook quickly decimated MySpace, it has privacy filters, discourages people who are not your "friends" from being able to contact you, required users to use their real names and locations, and blocked underage users from creating accounts to prevent access to kids by pedophiles.

The problem with MySpace was mocked by the satiric series "MadTV":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0rjeLaiDbw

[peregrinator]

In this particular case, Australian law is only a reiteration of the policies of Facebook and X, both platforms had long forbid accounts for anyone under 16.

Facebook allows accounts for children as young as 13 and has had this policy for at least a decade. X has a similar policy but I don't know how long they've had it

[Highlander]

The Catholic high school where I used to be chaplain instituted a complete cell phone ban this year. When I stopped by for a visit, I mentioned how pleased I was with the ban. They told me there were parents who were reluctant to send their children to the school unless such a ban was in place. The local public schools had already instituted it.

I am quite glad to hear this. In your area, in the Catholic high school, you may have a different class of parents. With different priorities. I do have doubts that, if the public schools there have banned cell phone possession, that they will enforce the ban. Based upon our experience here. Where use was banned, possession wasn't, and parents and kids used. I do hope your local reform works out.

[Doom]

I also strongly disagree with the idea that an unenforceable law creates contempt for the law. The Church teaches that one of the purposes of civil law is to teach morality. The mere fact that something is illegal tends to create a social stigma against that behavior, and this is one of the chief purposes of civil law.

One great example of a largely unenforceable law is the law against drunk driving; well over 90% of people who drive drunk are never caught.

But that is irrelevant, because the chief value of the law against drunk driving is that it has changed attitudes about drunk driving. It is not that long ago that drunk driving was considered a joke; look at Otis on The Andy Griffith Show, a source of humor. It was once common for people to joke, "one more for the road," when ordering one more drink before driving home.

But the law against drunk driving changed people's attitudes; people will now take someone's keys and refuse to allow them to drive home while intoxicated, and the new social role of the "designated driver" was invented to prevent people from driving drunk. No longer is drunk driving considered harmless and a source of humor. It is the criminalization that is responsible for that.

Another example of a law creating a social stigma is Prohibition. Oh, I know, that is often cited as an example of the opposite, but that is because people don't know the data.

Under Prohibition, alcohol sales and consumption dropped by more than half. And the people who grew up under Prohibition didn't drink while Prohibition was law, but they continued abstaining from alcohol for the rest of their lives.

After Prohibition ended, alcohol sales were significantly lower than they were only 12 years earlier, and alcohol sales did not recover to the levels of 1919 until as late as 1973, 40 years after Prohibition ended. Surely, it is not coincidental that the rise in alcohol sales started to increase right around the time that significant numbers of the generation that lived through Prohibition started to die off in significant numbers.

The law is a teacher, and that is one of its purposes.

[Highlander]

I am interested in the definition of "ban". In a discussion this morning, As stated earlier, in the local public schools "ban" means "do not use".

Phone use was common and persistent. Kids became wizards at concealed texting. Since destroying the phone was not permitted, private property and racism and student rights and all, teachers had one approved option. The phone was taken, walked to the the principal's office, and could be reclaimed by the kid at the end of the school day. Keeping the phone at the teacher's desk until a more convenient time was not allowed in the process. Because of the burden upon the teacher, phone use was often just not observed. I was informed that if a teacher acted on every use of phones in the classroom, there would be little teaching. Thus, the penalty for use of a banned object was not using the object until day's end.

Recording teachers in the classroom has become common. With attendant pros and cons. An argument against banning use of phones in the classroom is that it could conceal pernicious teacher behavior. An argument for banning use of phones is that the clever little devils can edit a recording to cause all sorts of trouble. That argument has weight among various school administrators and school boards and lawyers.

Since use was common and constant, the norm established was that, if texting was not interrupting class, it was not seen.

[Highlander]

I also strongly disagree with the idea that an unenforceable law creates contempt for the law. ...
...
One great example of a largely unenforceable law is the law against drunk driving; well over 90% of people who drive drunk are never caught.
,,,
The law is a teacher, and that is one of its purposes.

Yes. We disagree. Civilly, happily.

Let me digress. It seems that a number of you folks live in a universe quite different than mine. I live in a dyed blue in the wool sanctuary city that has overspent its budget again and is raising the issue of raising taxes. And, I live in a state that has been redistricted to ensure permanent Democrat governance, a state determined by the FBI this year as being the most dangerous in the US. From US News, based upon FBI data:

...New Mexico averaged 749 violent crime incidents per 100,000 residents. These numbers are extremely high, especially considering the national average, when data was collected, was 348 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants.

On the other hand, incarceration rates are low compared to other states. New Mexico has an average of 231 incarcerations per 100,000 people, while the national average is 306 per 100,000 inhabitants. ...

Below is how New Mexico compares to other U.S. states according to U.S. News:

Crime & Corrections: #49
Economy: #43
Education: #50
Fiscal Stability: #26
Health Care: #38
Infrastructure: #42
Natural Environment: #30
Opportunity: #37
Overall Ranking: #47

Just this week, a friend living in a middle class neighborhood reported that, one night, at least 28 gunshots were fired in his cul-de-sac (he counted because he was Infantry), striking six houses and penetrating several. There were no casualties, but there was one close call -- some idiot was looking our her window to see what was happening. Three "shots fired" calls were made to 911, which provided and estimated response time of 22+ minutes. The response was late, the shooter(s) left unhindered -- one took the time to police up his brass. No idea why the shooting, just a police report. And not a mention in the news.

So, that's where I live. Regressing ...

If you note above, NM is last nationally in education, so cell phone use in the classroom is probably not the core education issue. Also note that we are champions in crime, but we don't jail many of our criminals. I related elsewhere the breakdown in conforming to vehicle laws ... where we don't register, license, insure, or safely maintain the often stolen vehicles on our streets. Or on our front yards, but that's another wrinkle.

Drinking and driving? Regularly, it is reported that a driver with multiple arrests for DUI was again arrested. The most I heard of was 30+ arrests with several 20+ arrests. Arrests numbering in the teens don't bear mention. All on revoked licenses. The mantra is that such arrests are racist and that the driver cannot be jailed since he has to support his family. Our State House Speaker once stated that confiscating the vehicles of one with multiple DUI convictions was --- do you hear the train? -- racist, that multiple people in the family needed to use the vehicle, that the drunk had just borrowed the car from someone in the family and that family members shouldn't be penalized.

Oh, and six (or more) Albuquerque police officers and a lawyer formed a ring where a person being arrested for a DUI was given the business card of the lawyer. If contacted, the lawyer accepted a fee. The fee bought the nonappearance of the officers at court. Which led to the dismissal of the case. It required the FBI to investigate, charge, and try.

It is my observation that drunk driving is absolutely illegal in NM, It is also socially acceptable, that consequences for drunk driving are mitigated politically, judicially, and legally and illegally, and that cultural norms excuse and shield and facilitate drunk drivers. The laws exist, but a wide and deep structure of mechanisms and processes exist and have evolved to negate the laws. If teaching about the law is happening, the lesson is that laws don't matter. Laws should in no way impede my personal druthers; they are for other people.

The laws are not held in contempt; they are beneath contempt